Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadJohn Bengel Commentary - Revelation 22:21 - 22:21
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Rev 22:21. [252] ΠΆΝΤΩΝ) Some add, ὙΜῶΝ and ἈΜΉΝ.[253] Wolf will not have the last word ἀμὴν, which is found in many manuscripts, and in all the published editions, omitted. How ready the copyists were to insert the particle Amen in Doxologies and clauses containing a prayer, since it is usually found in such situations, appears from almost all the books of the New Testament, at the close, and from the annotation of Wolf on App. Rev 1:18, where almost all the copyists have absurdly inserted ἀμήν. One copyist who omits it, is of more value than ten who add it at their own pleasure. See App. Crit. Ed. ii. on this passage [where the relation in which Wolf stood to Bengel is distinctly set forth at large]. Now, if any one should write out at full length such a text, for instance of the Apocalypse, as many persons prefer at the present day, he will have a reading which is full, intelligible, tinged with parallelism, that is, interpolated, and almost everywhere made up of the fewest and most recent authorities, which, when compared with the editions, would not much differ from the text published by H. Stephens and the Elzevirs. My recension also, in the margin, indeed, is sometimes deprived of the greater number of authorities; but this happens in those places which were less frequently quoted by the Fathers: nor, however, is it without the support of competent authorities, whose antiquity, together with the exegetical arguments natural to the text itself, makes up for the deficiency in number. With the exception of such passages (for they are to be treated for a while by way of exception), my text in its whole tenor approaches the copies which are by far the most numerous, spread out from the times of John to all ages and countries, whether you look to the Greek manuscripts, or the versions, and especially to the noted Italian Version, or to the fathers, Irenæu[254], Hippolytus, Orige[255], Athanasius, Andreas, Tertullian, Cypria[256], Jerome, Primasius, etc.: bound to follow no edition entirely, and yet seldom compelled to betake itself to manuscripts only. The reading is for the most part brief; and where there was a manifold variety, it takes a middle course: it everywhere retains its ancient and austere, that is, its natural character. Of what kind this was, Wolf has discovered, as I think, in the Supplements to his Curæ (if he has advanced to this point), and has yielded to the truth more plainly ascertained. He has always been mindful of his own moderation towards me; and all, as I hope, will understand that I also have accurately preserved the laws of moderation. The Exegesis, of which by far the better portion is contained here, proceeds on the same plan. Wherever I have not been able to exchange my own sentiments with the opinion of others, competent judges will, as I hope, recognise not obstinacy (for a sentiment which has been already carefully weighed, through many doubts and considerations, is less liable to change), but love of the truth. And the same persons, when they shall have considered what foundations I first laid, and when they shall have duly weighed what I have replied to doubts put forward from various quarters, will perhaps determine that a suitable defence[257] of other passages also, which no one hitherto has censured, if they shall be censured, will be in readiness for me to make, or will suggest itself to my readers, if I am silent or dead.[258]
[252] 20. ἔρχομαι ταχὺ, I come quickly) Thus Jesus speaks; John, both afterwards and before, says, Come. These coincide at the one moment. So Psa 27:8, My heart says, (seek ye my face:) Thy face do I seek.-V. g.
[253] So A. Amiat. MS. of Vulg. omits ὑμῶν, but adds the Ἀμήν. B adds τῶν ἁγίων, and the Ἀμήν; Rec. Text, ὑμῶν. ἀμήν.-E.
[254] renæus (of Lyons, in Gaul: born about 130 A.D., and died about the end of the second century). The Editio Renati Massueti, Parisinæ, a. 1710.
[255] rigen (born about 186 A.D., died 253 A.D., a Greek father: two-thirds of the N. Test. are quoted in his writings). Ed. Vinc. Delarue, Paris. 1733, 1740, 1759.
[256] yprian (in the beginning and middle of the third century: a Latin father). Ed. Steph. Baluzii, Paris. 1726.
[257] The departed has not been disappointed in his expectation. After his death he has obtained many defenders, most distinguished both for the fame of their learning, and for uprightness of mind; some, indeed, of whom, have either understood or expressed the mind of Bengel more or less accurately than others. There occur to me at present as worthy of mention, for example, C. A. Crusius, a divine of the first rank at Leipsic, in the Vorrede zu Hn. Past. Fehrens Anleitung zum rechten Verstand und Gebrauch der Offenb. Joh. 1760: s. t. fassliche Vorstellung von dem ganzen Buche der Offenb. J. C., wie man es mit oder ohne Berechnung der geheimen Zeiten nutzen soll, republished at Leipsic, 1766: in his Memoranda on the Theology of Prophecy, T. I. Lips. 1764: in the Vorrede zu Hn. Past. Michaëlis erläutertem N. T. Leipz. 1769, and everywhere: J. F. Burscher, in the Versuch einer kurzen Erläuterung des propheten Jeremiæ, Leipz. 1756: S. B. Fehre, in the Anleitung zum rechten Verstand und Gebrauch der Offenb. Joh., Altenburg, 1760: W. B. Christlieb, in the Grundfeste der Bengelischen Erklärung der Offenbarung J. C. etc., Frkf. und Leipz. 1760: C. F. Schmid, in the allgem. Vorbereitung zu seiner kritischen Untersuchung, Ob die Offenb. Joh. ein ächtes göttliches Buch ist? Leipz. 1771: M. F. Roos, in his Auslegung der Weissagungen Daniels, die in die Zeit des N. T. hineit reichen, nebst ihrer Vergleichung mit der Offenb. Joh. nach der Bengelischen Erklärung derselben, Leipz. 1771: J. F. Frisch, in his apocalyptischen Catechismus, oder catechetischen Erklärung der Offenb. Johannis, auf eine deutlich und fassliche Art vor die gemeine Christenheit abgefasset, Leipz. 1773. And to these deserve to be added the anonymous writer in the schriftmässigen Anmerkungen über die in des D. Ernesti theologischen Bibliothek, B. VI., James 4, befindliche Recension, des Hn. D. Crusii Hypomnemata ad Theol. Proph. betreffend, Frkf. und Leipz. 1766 (in which treatise much strength of interpretation is put forth with remarkable facility, and in particular the memorable passage of Habakkuk, concerning the middle of the years, is manfully vindicated according to the sense of Bengel); and especially J. G. Böhmer, in his erläuternden Anmerkungen zu dem-von ihme übersetzten Bengelischen Cyclus oder Betrachtung über das grosse Weltjahr, Leipz 1773 (where the agreement of the Chronology of Bengel with the observations of Astronomers is proved, as I hope, by no ordinary arguments). In which matter I wish the readers ever to bear in mind, that Bengel, in his Vorrede zur Erkl. Offenb. § XIII., wished every one to be questioned in these words: “Was in dieser Erklärung enthalten ist, und aus derselben durch eine rechtmässige Folge fleusst, das gilt: hingegen wolle sich niemand bereden lassen, dass ich irgendwo etwas, das doch mit dieser Erklärung keine Verwandtschaft hat, ausgesagt und veranlasset hätte,” etc. But if any one is anxious to know the rest of the more recent interpreters who adopt altogether different opinions, he must notice J. C. Harenberg, in the Erklärten Offenbarung Johannis, Braunschw. 1759: an anonymous writer in the Apocalypse revealed, in which are brought to light secret things which are there foretold, and have hitherto been concealed, Amst. 1766 (concerning which comp. my Beleuchtung, etc., § 16, p. 70, etc.): Ph. F. Hane, in his Entwurf der Kirchengeschichte N. T. wie solche in den erfüllten Weissagungen der göttlichen Offenb. Joh. enthalten sind, etc., Leipz. 1768, 1769, 1772: J. S. Semler, in the freyen Untersuchung über die sogenannte Offenbarung Johannis, aus der Handschrift eines Fränkischen Gelehrten (D. Oeders) herausgegeben, mit eignen Anmerkungen, Halle, 1769 (-which book, though it does not contain a continuous exegesis, but rather a spirited rejection of the Apocalypse, was not, however, to be concealed by me here): Jac. Brucker, in his Anmerkungen zum Englischen Bibelwerk, XIX. Th., oder des N. T. VIII. B. Leipz. 1770: an anonymous writer, s. t. die Offenbarung des heil. Johannis, erläutert, I. and II. Abschn. Halle, 1769, 1772: but especially Ernesti, in his neuen und neuesten Theol. Bibl. 1760-72, and Michaelis, in his Einleitung in die göttliche Schriften des N. B., 1766, everywhere show themselves keen censors of Bengel, as far as it respects their suffrages on the Apocalypse, although they rather confine themselves to general judgments, than descend to the stronghold of the cause by arguments betraying mature investigation. And here, indeed, we may repeat, by way of conclusion, the words of Hellwage (Pref. to new Ed. Ord. Temp. § XI.): “Let those who are alarmed at the present commotions, review and more closely examine what (Bengel) has said or written. Let those who can, profit by the kind favour of Bengel, in knowing and bearing witness to the truth which he taught; and, by the gift of GOD, let them surpass Bengel, who would wish that very thing, and congratulate us:” (comp. altogether die Erkl. Offenb. on ch. xvii. 9,)-εἰδότες, ὅτι ὁ κόπος ὑμῶν οὐκ ἔστι κενὸς ἐν Κυρίῳ.
[258] Bengel, J. A. (1866). Vol. 5: Gnomon of the New Testament (M. E. Bengel & J. C. F. Steudel, Ed.) (W. Fletcher, Trans.) (329-388). Edinburgh: T&T Clark.